Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

jfruh writes "Most Slashdotters have been following the debate among the various players in the music industry about how much money artists (and their labels) get from traditional music outlets like radio and newer services like Pandora or Spotify. But Zoë Keating, a professional cellist who has a professional interest in the outcome of this argument, thinks there's one thing missing from all the proposals: more data on who her audience is. Even digital services can't tell her how many people heard her songs or where they're most popular. 'How can I grow my business on this information?' she asks. 'How do I reach them? Do they know I'm performing nearby next month? How can I tell them I have a new album coming out?'"
She proposes mandatory reporting of information on listeners as part of royalties.

“I want my data and in 2012 I see absolutely no reason why I shouldn’t own it,” she wrote.

Which begs the question in my mind, whose data is it? The stations' to whom listeners tune into and collect the data or the artists' whose music is played? I would argue its the stations as they're the ones collecting it.

Another question is what is the data? I don't listen to any satellite or internet radio stations so I could be wrong, but I suspect that in the case of internet radio you can get the number of feeds and their location but that's about it. Is there any listener data that can be collected by satellite? How can that data be used to help artists market themselves better?

This post, and the entire thread it's spawned, seems like a perfect example of what is fundamentally wrong with the idea of ownership of information. Something as very basic as "who wants this stuff" is information that would help every business and consumer in the entire chain if it were released publicly, but that doesn't happen, because every single business and consumer in the chain wrongly, stupidly, and greedily claims that it is theirs and nobody can use it if they don't get a cut. Nearly everyone involved in this industry works as hard as they can to screw themselves over, all because they want to be paid for something that literally everybody has a reasonable claim to.

No it does not help the customer who are in the majority...if you sell 300 items then 300 people want them it does not matter who they are where they are, it only reduces your advertising costs as you can direct your adverts to people who are already buying your product (and leave out the people who are not buying now) !

You need to complete this thought, guy. An independent artist with a quite limited travel budget is trying to figure out where to perform next. If she has data on where there are large numbers of her fans, she can have more successful shows, allowing her to put on more shows and continue creating, thus benefiting her fanbase. Successful artistry is not a parasitic relationship unless you're some kind of objectivist robot.

So by that same logic, it benefits me when Company X learns everything about me so they can create a better Widget for me to buy? Because that is exactly what you just said. The only difference is that I've removed "artist" from the equation to acknowledge there is nothing special about an "artist" in this equation.

I've seen Zoe in concert -- she's pretty awesome! I would like to see her again. But I'm a busy guy, and "sign up on Zoe's website for tour news" usually doesn't bubble up very high on my priority list. If I see a banner or promo flyer, however, I'm more likely to make note of it and maybe actually put it in my calendar to attend. If she knows there's a lot of others listening to her in my region, then she's more likely to schedule another concert here, and do more marketing here.

Another question is what is the data? I don't listen to any satellite or internet radio stations so I could be wrong, but I suspect that in the case of internet radio you can get the number of feeds and their location but that's about it. Is there any listener data that can be collected by satellite? How can that data be used to help artists market themselves better?

Users of Pandora sign up for the service, which allows them to create their own "stations" which are randomly generated groups of songs determined to be similar to the seed song or seed genre. For each individual song played, users can skip, thumbs up, or thumbs down (which also skips, but reduces the likelihood of replay). That's way more data than the old radio model with snail mail surveys.

I think responses like this are missing the forest for the trees in the idea being proposed here.

Let's take a step back. The context of the idea is a dying traditional music industry; most of the old business models are failing. In the old models, there were a number of large marketing and distribution networks who collected the sort of data Keating is asking for, and used that data to inform their marketing and distribution efforts. An organization in the business of successful music sales needs to know th

It's MY data. She got MY money in trade for the music. Is that not enough? Is this going to be another reason to drive people to piracy? She didn't get this kind of detailed information when her song was delivered over radio waves, why should she she demand my information now that it is over IP?

You got something in exchange for your money, so arguably the data is half hers. Also, the data she's requesting still leaves you anonymous, but would allow her to be able to know what age ranges like her music and what parts of the world. This would allow her to be a more successful artist by focusing her marketing efforts to those people who might actually pay to see her in concert, which eventually benefits you as she continues to make the music you enjoy. Everybody wins. Radio doesn't offer that kind of information, and as a result it always goes for the safe money (or the payola, as the case may be) and plays the music guaranteed to appeal to the largest majority of listeners. If you're listening to Pandora then it's likely because terrestrial radio has let you down in terms of selection. Exactly what are you fighting against here? Allowing people to give you what you want?

Bullshit. Why should getting something in exchange for the money automatically mean the data is half hers?

She's got the data on whatever she has sold directly.

If she doesn't want to incur the costs of selling directly then why should she automatically get the benefits of selling directly to the customers?

The supermarket and grocery store knows who is buying their stuff and where. If the farmer wants to know where each tomato is going, the farmer is going to have to pay for it. Or set up his/her own store.

The farmer doesn't care where one particular tomato goes, just as the artist doesn't care who in particular was listening to her track. The farmer does know that he's selling a lot more tomatoes to stores in Austin than he sells to stores in Houston, so it would benefit him to make arrangements with warehouses (or something like that, I don't really know much about the logistics involved in tomatoes) closer to Austin than Houston. Similarly, the musician would like to know whether her track is being played

You got something in exchange for your money, so arguably the data is half hers.

She got money, I got music. There was no agreement to get my data. 0% is hers.

Also, the data she's requesting still leaves you anonymous, but would allow her to be able to know what age ranges like her music

Just age? Or my full birthday? How about my IP address? Or my real address? Or my credit card number? Does she get to say which information and where the line is drawn? Which "HALF" of MY data does she get exactly?

Exactly what are you fighting against here? Allowing people to give you what you want?

That just because I trade my money for something doesn't mean they can get my personal information "just because it's the internet".

1) You paid money (or paid with eyes/ears on an advertisement) to listen to her song2) She doesn't know you did so...

She's not getting "Money for you listening".. or at least, she has no way to know it.. Pandora doesn't tell her how many times her music was listened to... Being in a business.. it IS helpful to know exactly how many transactions you made to get your $500... or.. how many of what song was sold..

I agree with you.. She doesn't need my name, or birthday, or my financial information.... But if she wants to know I listened to Her Songs X, Y, and Z... and that I bought Her Song A.. She should, in my opinion, be able to get some kind of breakdown of that information (Here is $250, your songs were listened to by 20,000 people.. 240 bought the following songs:)

This data requires no data mining.. It's data Pandora already has and uses to pay her royalty... and the only cost is from writing the artist a semi-detailed receipt to go with her royalty check.. currently Pandora says "Here's $300, no.. you can't know how many times each song was listened to.. no.. you can't know how many songs people bought"

Great for us.. Great for Pandora... makes learning what we (the audience) like to listen to and buy impossible without getting the tainted groups of fanatics who seek the artist out on their own..

You got something in exchange for your money, so arguably the data is half hers.

The data she is requesting was generated by my actions, it is a data about what I did. Just like the GPS data in your telephone represents your movements, and the event log in your PC tells what programs you ran and the browsing history what websites you visited. It is your data.

What we need is a law that states that metadata belongs to the person that generated it.

They didn't. The internet changed everything. Before the internet, either a record label signed you (and usually ripped you off) or you played in bars. The record companies had all the data; they knew how many copies of whom was selling where, and who was playing whom on the radio and where.

If your label liked you they might illegally pay radio stations to play your stuff. If they didn't, they either didn't renew your contract or simply didn't ship

Geographic distribution and some basic demographics is one thing, and quite a reasonable one, but combine "How do I reach them? How can I tell them I have a new album coming out?" and “I want my data and in 2012 I see absolutely no reason why I shouldn’t own it.” and it sounds like the worst sort of stalkery marketer who'll abuse the hell out of your personal information for a buck.

Sure, I see your point. But for certain artists I would like to be able to opt-in to show announcements. Or get a summary. Like, how about a personalized calendar that shows the dates for nearby shows for the list of artists I select? I get a calendar, and artists get anonymized numbers about where and how many people have added them to their calendar.

I find out that certain videos are a hit with certain blogs, that's where my traffic comes from. So I make sure to give them more of what they want, PLUS I struck up a relationship of sorts with the blog owners which is mutually beneficial.

I let them know when I have new content, which helps them. They give me a wider platform, info that helps me learn the subculture, etc.

I am NOT a networker kind of person, I'm a "do every last thing yourself" kind of person, but analytics let you know when you're wasting your time, let you know where your "friends" and compatriots are, etc.

For a musician, it could even help them know what cities they might try booking an appearance in, because they discover they have a fan base there.

I find out that certain videos are a hit with certain blogs, that's where my traffic comes from. So I make sure to give them more of what they want, PLUS I struck up a relationship of sorts with the blog owners which is mutually beneficial.

I let them know when I have new content, which helps them. They give me a wider platform, info that helps me learn the subculture, etc.

I am NOT a networker kind of person, I'm a "do every last thing yourself" kind of person, but analytics let you know when you're wasting your time, let you know where your "friends" and compatriots are, etc.

For a musician, it could even help them know what cities they might try booking an appearance in, because they discover they have a fan base there.

so she should get a fb page.btw. networking with blog owners and people who bring you traffic sure as fuck sounds like "networking".

There's a lot of contempt for her in your response.Makes me question your motives.

I'm networking? If you can call using analytics networking.If you can call not ONE of the half of a million people who have watched my videos and not ONE of the blog owners knowing my name or who I am "networking."

If you can call me spending my own money to create things and give them all away free, anonymously, "networking."

Personally I just call it "using available data to see what people appreciate."

"Networking" is just "communicating" -- you are communicating with people (such as blog owners). In this case, your goal is growing your audience, not growing your business or profit. That's fine -- there's nothing WRONG with networking. There's nothing wrong with growing your audience. And I'd also argue there's nothing wrong with growing a business or increasing your profit, if that's what you wanted to do.

I am not chasing fame. I post everything anonymously, with a creative commons license.

I am chasing INFORMING people. I am chasing adding to the body of human knowledge in my extremely modest way. I am chasing pleasing people. I am chasing putting something out there that people find inspiring or engaging or fun or cool.

Anonymously.

Because I too like fun, cool, inspiring things and appreciate when others put them out there.

it sounds like the worst sort of stalkery marketer who'll abuse the hell out of your personal information for a buck.

Whoa there partner, back up. What this artist is asking for is entirely reasonable because this information is already available to the distributor. And offering additional information from the artist like when and where shows are happening is not only reasonable but the main method by which independent artists make their money! Radio was given free license to air music precisely because air time led to increased ticket sales, and they're very pro-active about announcing concerts that are coming up; It's typically part of the contract.

This person isn't asking for the personal details of every listener, but rather information on when and where those listeners are -- something that would be needed to audit the distributor and ensure their contractual agreement is being upheld, and something that a court order would easily be granted for. And it's just good business anyway. There's nothing "stalkery" about this. Or would you prefer the artist take it on faith that the distributor isn't screwing them over? As I understand it, there's something of a commotion over contractual obligations of certain 4-letter acronym'd agencies that often talk about "artists' rights", though they afford none to those who sign contracts with them. Shouldn't we be wanting the industry to be moving away from this kind of vendor lock-in?

What this artist is asking for is entirely reasonable because this information is already available to the distributor.

Also available to the distributor is all the information about the other artists you listen to. And your zip code, your email address, your age. Possibly, depending on what sort of account you have, your home address and your credit card number. I'm pretty sure that she wouldn't ask for your credit card number, but I'm sure she'd love to have your email address.

I think the artist's attitude is very reasonable -- consider what Zoe wrote:

* Over 90% of my internet radio royalties are from Pandora. * There is hardly any data. None of the laws require any entity to tell me how many performances I had, and so no one does. It’s nice to know how much money I made, but where did it come from? How can I grow my business on this information?

She recognizes that the business model for music is changing, but the old laws give her the old currency (money), not the new curr

She sells a product, TO THE RADIOSTATION, who then sells it to us. I am quite sure that say, Hostess, would like to have the demographic data from each supermarket, but they can't have it because it is NOT their data.

It is only the odd nature of content (infinitely replicatable unlike physical products) and bought laws that even has music being counted (number of times played). Physical product makers sell X amount to resellers and that is all the data they get. Why do you THINK they hold product promotions requiring you to send in your address? To get some data on were their products end up because the supermarkets are NOT just going to tell them for the fun of it. The product maker delivers his goods to the supermarket and his involvement ends there. He wants more, he pays for it. Through the nose.

A supermarket has no obligation, legal or moral to even record, let alone report, how that pallet of cookies was distributed amongst its shops let alone its customers. The amount of entitlement in this Zoe the Freeloading cellist demand is staggering. You want to get in touch with your customers, engage them yourself. It is NOT a broadcasters job to do that for you. Setup a youtube channel or whatever and get people to give them your details, expecting a radiostation to do that for you is everything that is wrong with the content industry today.

Content is a product nothing more, I buy it the same as toilet paper and frankly I be a lot more upset running out of toilet paper then out of commercial content.

What next, MP3 players have to upload logs of the play history, so the bills can be send correctly? She wants to force the use of kinect with Pandora to count the number of listeners?

She wants private consumer data from a commercial entity for free. If it wasn't the content industry this would be instantly discarded in the waste basket of bloody stupid ideas. Really, would you be okay with Hostess getting your address from the supermarket that they got from your credit card?

NO! Hell, in Holland at least, the supermarket itself ain't even allowed to use its payment data to find out peoples addresses, they have the bank numbers but are not allowed to match them in anyway. That is why loyalty cards are not simply tied to your bank pas which would be far simpler then having a separate card and give far more reliable tracking data (you didn't think loyalty cards existed for any other reason did you).

She sells a product, TO THE RADIOSTATION, who then sells it to us. I am quite sure that say, Hostess, would like to have the demographic data from each supermarket, but they can't have it because it is NOT their data.

Except that Hostess probably DOES have that data. Why? Because for one thing, supermarkets are often regional. Secondly, Hostess stocks the products and puts up advertising materials and promos in the individual stores. Third of all, why wouldn't the supermarket want to share that data with hostess? If Hostess can take that data and use it to sell more Twinkies in that supermarket, why wouldn't they help their supplier help them sell more goods? What Hostess doesn't have is the information on how many

I agree that she has no entitlement to this data, but if Pandora were smart, they would provide it. It would certainly increase the number of people who work with Pandora, providing more selection for customers, and would therefore increase the value of the Pandora brand.

Her overall argument is that the information is more valuable to her than the $$ paid, and she would rather have the information about her "listens".She writes she was paid $1652 for 1.5 million listens in Pandora in the first half of 2012, and that dollar amount is that ONLY information she gets.

I wish I could make this demand: stream my music, but in exchange give me my listener data. But the law doesn’t give me that power. The law only demands I be paid in money, which at this point in my career is

I understand why she is asking for it. I am just agreeing with the GP that she is definitely not entitled to it. The argument I am trying to make is that Pandora and the artists both would be better off if that information was available to the artists.

There is a way to let the artist reach the user without infringing on the user's rights. Right now, the webpage displays info on the artist. You can reach that same info by clicking on the band's name in the desktop app. Just let artists add a couple sentences to their bio page. Something like "We have a new album called XXX coming out on YYY! Be sure to check it out!"

Problem solved. People who want to learn more about the artist can get the info, people who don't care don't get ads shoved in their fa

I disagree. She says that she wants "her" data, but she's talking about basic demographics and geographic distribution. There are plenty of automated, autonomous ways for Pandora et al to help her reach you without her ever knowing who exactly you are. If the data tells her that all of her fans are located in San Francisco, then she would be wasting time and money holding a concert in Cincinnati, and vice-versa. She then takes out a TV ad, a billboard or a newspaper ad saying that she'll be in the area for

You mean like sit in an office and typing on a computer - is that REAL WORK? Or REAL WORK like digging potatoes with bare hands instead of lazy sponging like sitting in a tractor and making it do the work or cheating and using a shovel?Sorry kid, but you are ridiculous. It takes all kinds to make a society and entertaining is still "real work" even if you and I do something different.

It's not "done for free" if a middleman is taking a cut. It appears she wants the middleman to do more REAL WORK (there i

She is not asking for it "for free" she recognises that it has value so she is asking for it in lieu of financial reward. ie she is asking for something of value in (at least part) payment of the royalties due to her.

"How do I reach them? How can I tell them I have a new album coming out?" and “I want my data and in 2012 I see absolutely no reason why I shouldn’t own it.”
This is a simple problem to solve. Just advertise on Pandora. In fact, you can advertise whenever your own song is played. So every time your song is played, you get X for the play and you pay them X+profit for the advertisement. Feel better now?

Put your battle-axe back in the scabbard. You've made your bed; now you have to eat it. We could stand here and talk until the cows turn blue. It’s time to step up to the plate and lay your cards on the table.

No. I don't necessarily want more of the same. Why would I want to be locked in one specific musical genre? I want to explore entirely new directions and be inspired. Targeted marketing would reduce the scope of new music, based on the marketeer's opinion of what I should like. Well guess what, I like Slipknot, Burt Bacharach, Louis Armstrong, electro-house, J.S. Bach, Bulgarian folk music and obscure Scandinavian jazz artists.

thow her the fuck out. With out exposure she'll have nothing, let her run her own website and gather those stats. The only things pandora should give out is the basic stats on how much the copyright owner should get paid past that they can PAY Pandora to get more stats.

How do I reach them? Do they know I'm performing nearby next month? How can I tell them I have a new album coming out?

They can look you up if they like your performance on the radio. If they like it, they can look you up and probably subscribe to your RSS feed with all your new updates. If they are not doing so, they don't like you and your songs. Duh.

Unless you want to see her live in concert and she never plans one in your area because she had no idea that people in Podunk, Vermont are dying to see her perform live. Also, although RSS is awesome, it's a really crappy medium for listening to music. Being text and all. Just sayin'.

They can look you up if they like your performance on the radio. If they like it, they can look you up and probably subscribe to your RSS feed with all your new updates. If they are not doing so, they don't like you and your songs. Duh.

This is valid for, let's call them "professional listeners", people who absolutely love music and actively go after it. But there are others like me, however, people we could call "middle-of-the-road listeners", who aren't that active, but would enjoy having their listening habit (that they themselves don't know they have) tapped onto. For instance, now and then it amazes me to discover that I actually like a certain singer or band quite a lot when I reflect at my own listening activity. And I didn't even k

Oddly enough the first and only place I've heard of this artist is bandcamp [zoekeating.com] and I think she's helped it grow. She seems to be demanding Pandora put in all the nice things that Bandcamp has.

Bandcamp is not a radio streaming station but you can stream a lot of albums freely on it. Bandcamp [bandcamp.com] seems to solve a lot of these problems with it's pricing clearly stated [bandcamp.com]. I don't use it as a musician but I make a lot of music purchases there and this is how things work. If you want to get an album for free, the band has the option of asking at least for your e-mail address and zip code. That way they can geographically target you or let you know they have a new album on Bandcamp. On top of that I think the sites has a huge stats dashboard for artists -- even including the referral URLs from which your listeners are landing on your page (so if you have it hooked up to your band's page, you can differentiate that from someone who found it via pitchfork or something).

I've been an avid paid Pandora listener for a few years and would love to see them find a way to improve their services especially if it can make them more marketable and last longer. This can benefit both the consumer and the artist if done properly and I think Zoe Keating, incidentally whom I discovered on Pandora, has the right idea.

When I find an artist I REALLY enjoy the first thing I end up doing is finding more of their songs not on Pandora...but on youtube. Then if I like a good portion of their stuff I'll usually go hunt for their album, which I usually try to buy directly from the artist when possible, or I'm looking to see if they're ever playing anywhere near me.

It would also be neat if it could show a map/chart of artists based on what you've thumbs upped previously or sort by station or something while you're in a buying mode. One thing I couldn't understand is how Pandora didn't enter into the music sales business as that would have flowed nicely with their current business. Imagine having an "add to cart" for songs you really dig and being able to play those on demand within the Pandora interface? Or just revert back to full on radio mode like always. There's just so much potential for this service and it typically nails what I'm in the mood to listening to.

Part of what she's asking for isn't so bad, namely aggregate metrics or just general listening statistics. I've got some music on Pandora as well, and I can say that they make absolutely no information available about how many people are listening, how many listeners skip the song, how many listeners give the song a thumbs up or down, etc. Once the music goes in, the rest if a big mystery.

She loses me when she suggests that she should just magically be able to get her listeners' contact information without some sort of opt-in. As much as I would love an epic mailing list of anyone who has ever heard my work... yeah... no...

Here is a clue, dumb ass:If people here it an like it they will go to this neat thing called 'Google'.Then they will 'find' you.You can post all the information about what you are doing on the internet via a 'website' or 'blog'You might want to look into it.

"oh no, it's my business so spend money telling me things becasue my business is more important to anything else. WHAAAA! pay me more for work I already did years ago.. WHAAA!"

your listening data is already being collected. She may or may not be asking for listener email addresses, but if not, the statistics on your likes and dislikes and other listening patterns are part of the music genome project anyway. How would the artists' ability to view your listening patterns (without identifying you specifically) violate any right to privacy that isn't already given up as part of your agreement when creating an account to use the service?

And Pandora already reports your listening activity (just not to the artist):

Pandora Privacy Policy [pandora.com] We use the information that we collect for the following purposes:[...]* To pay artists and copyright owners for tracks you hear, by reporting listening information to copyright licensing agencies. These reports contain aggregated data only, and do not include your personally identifiable information.

All Zoe is asking for is access to that aggregated listening data, which you've already agreed you are okay wit

Specifically you are correct with regards to "first sale". Generally you are not with regards to the "relationship". That is to say, I paid the rights to have music streamed to me in consideration for monies paid. What I did not pay for is a relationship. What's more, if that data IS provided then I expect some consideration in return. Pandora should not have to provide it free of charge, so they should get a discount on royalties paid, and in return I should not have to pay as much for the service be it fewer ads or lower fees.

I get her point. She is an artist trying to make a living. As an artist (her not me) I believe she genuinely wants to know who her fans are so she can engage with them more and expand her fan base. Artists want to be seen/heard/etc. That is a very personal thing for an artist. As a person trying to make a living out of it, I also understand her desire to use that very same data to help her market herself.

What she doesn't get is that it isn't her "right" to know who I am without my explicite agreement. She doesn't have to sell to me, and I don't have to buy from her. We BOTH have the right to demand terms bilaterally.

If she's asking for your personal details, then yeah, you have some cause for concern. But I doubt that's what she's asking for. TFA suggests that she wants to know where her work is popular, so that she can plan where to have her next concert, and target publicity effectively. Seems like a reasonable idea to me, although she may be disappointed to find that there is no locality to the data, and that her fans are actually evenly distributed across some large area.

Radio advertising,Album sales and concerts will tell her everything she needs to know. no album sales and low ticket sales means she sucks or made a bad album and needs a different line of business. In my heydays i listen to the radio if i like the music i went out and got an album,8 track or cassette depending on the age. Buying the after mentioned listening to the radio or read the music magazines of the day i found out when a concert was planned. But the best indicators were radio play and requests.

If you're an indie artist, you'll note that streaming services like Pandora, Spotify, etc are slowly displacing a lot of traditional album sales. And if you're an indie artist, radio play and advertising are basically nonexistent.

So I don't think she's asking anythign unreasonable. You want to know what venues to book for your next tour? Then you need to know who's listening. And if you're not selling albums the traditional way, and you're not getting radio play, then what you need are the metrics from t

Maybe he means more along these lines [pcadvisor.co.uk]? Spotify is part owned by the big labels. Artists get a pittance from Spotify, but seeing as it's 1) one of the the few legal ways to listen to lots of music without paying much, and 2) very convenient, it's what I use.

That's exactly what she WANTS -- to have the option to get listener data IN PLACE of royalties. But the law doesn't provide for that currently.

I wish I could make this demand: stream my music, but in exchange give me my listener data. But the law doesn’t give me that power. The law only demands I be paid in money, which at this point in my career is not as valuable as information. I’d rather be paid in data.

If you RTFA, you'd know she's not asking for free, she's asking for information INSTEAD of the royalty:

I wish I could make this demand: stream my music, but in exchange give me my listener data. But the law doesn’t give me that power. The law only demands I be paid in money, which at this point in my career is not as valuable as information. I’d rather be paid in data.

And $1 per play, huh? She wouldn't NEED listener information if she was making that kind of fat cash! Her royalty spreadsheet i